Aug 212015
 

It’s bad enough that a lot of women aren’t showering and stink from that.  What’s worse is feminists trying to use their farts as a weapon against men:

I became less butt shy and tried my method out again the next day. It worked like a charm. Otherwise bravado men in suits shifted uncomfortably and discreetly moved further away from me. I had cracked the code on women’s dominance. It was invisible but had been there all along. Ladies, we can stink men into submission.

Thank goodness New York City is so loud. I fart everywhere now. I fart in the grocery store to get the men behind me in line to back up a notch. I fart on the ferry to get men to take their goddamned arm off the back of my seat. I fart at the gym to get the sweaty men to move on over and not take the machine right next to mine. I fart on the street to get men to slow their roll and keep a respectful distance behind me and not encroach on my personal space.

Humid days are the best because the fart hangs around longer. More bang for my butt. Carb-loaded days also tend to be beneficial as they give me more ammo to work with.

If women intentionally fart all the time, men will definitely stay away.  That’s assuming men don’t stay away already due to women’s body odor from not taking showers or because of these women’s horrid personalities.  I’m certain that feminists will try to give themselves irritable bowel syndrome just to have their bodies fart more.

A couple of years from now, I expect a follow up article where the author complains that men want nothing to do with her.  I’m sure there will be shaming language about how “real men should want women who fart all the time and have putrid body odor” and “filthy women are real women”.  Such shaming language won’t work on men because no man will want a woman that’s toxic both figuratively and literally.

Dec 282013
 

I was in an airport in the midst of some Christmas travel, and I overheard some slut complaining about the men she meets.  Apparently, men only want to take her to gun shows except for this one guy who texts her on an almost daily basis at 10PM inviting her to his place for a drink.  She even complained that late night drink guy only texts her and never calls her.  This slut can’t figure out why men only invite her to gun shows or late night drinks.

I can help answer this.  It’s because most women aren’t worth investing in.  These guys think correctly that she is only worth the bare minimum of investment to get her to put out.  The gun show guys are only asking her to something they are already doing.  Late night drink guy doesn’t even think she is worth the time of a phone call.  That’s close to the absolute minimum of investment in a woman.  It’s one step above sending a text saying, “let’s fuck”.

What this slut doesn’t understand is that all she has to offer is a vagina.  The men she meets recognize that she doesn’t offer much and act accordingly.  If she wants men to do more than text her for late night drinks and bring her to gun shows, she has to offer more.

I’m certain that the men this slut meets have never heard of men’s rights, game, MGTOW, or any of the ideas in this part of the internet.  Yet, these men are acting like they have because this is the reality when a woman has nothing to offer but her vagina.

Jun 132013
 

Some anonymous idiot responded to the On Sluts page with:

2. The hookup culture is mutually beneficial. Men complaining about sluts should reflect upon their own promiscuity before determining that this is wrong. If you have so many complaints about it, you may want to stop hooking up with random ‘sluts’.

The rest of anon’s response was equally moronic, but this is part I want to focus on.   The hookup culture is not mutually beneficial.  We know that because of hypergamy.  It benefits most women, but only the most alpha of men.  It’s a fundamentally unequal situation, but anon is insisting an unequal situation is equal.  When you consider the belief most people have that “women want relationships” (which is true but only with the apex of men just like with hookups until they get desperate after 28 or so), the concept being presented here (unintentionally by anon) is that this is an equal situation, but men are benefiting from it more than women.  In other words, this ended up being another case where a feminist said that equality only benefits men, which is something we have heard from feminists before.

This got me thinking about other times someone says a situation is equal between men and women when it really isn’t leading to “equality only benefits men”.  When it comes to promiscuity we know because of hypergamy for every man that engages in it, several women do.  This is because a wider cross section of women have a greater opportunity to engage in promiscuity than all but a small fraction of men.  However, like the anon above, tradcons don’t recognize this and believe that this situation is equal too.  We have all seen tradcons say that “men are just as sinful as women” even though when it comes to sexual sin, this isn’t the case.  Since tradcons believe in “male leadership”, their belief in that men and women are equally sinning sexually turns into another case where equality benefits men only.  Tradcons believes that the only reason women commit sexual sins (or any type of sins) is because a man “led” them into it.  (This adds a new dimension to tradcon opposition to “equality”.)

Here’s the pattern we are seeing here:

  1. Take a situation that is unequal where women benefit over men
  2. Say that situation in question is “equal” between men and women
  3. Attack equality (explicitly or implicitly through misdirection) so that it looks like the situation in question benefits men even though it really benefits women

This is how feminists and other misandrists make situations that benefit women look like they benefit men.

May 202013
 

Most chicks won’t try to run a born again virgin con to entrap a man into marriage, like my ex Molly did.  It’s too much of a commitment for them, plus, they want sex too.  What I have noticed that a lot of my chicks do is play up how “conservative” they are.  This doesn’t necessarily mean political conservatism, but it can.  (You would be surprised how many chicks I have found supposedly support the Republican Party.)  When these chicks try to play up their supposed conservatism, it’s really a weaker form of the born again virgin con.  They’re trying to make it look like they’re different from those “other chicks” that are all :sluts” which is the same point of the born again virgin con.

There’s nothing conservative about these chicks.  They don’t dress conservatively.  They don’t lead conservative lifestyles, and they certainly don’t wait for sex like you would think a truly sexually conservative woman would.  Even if the ones who support the Republican Party are sincere, that has nothing to do with leading a conservative lifestyle.  A woman can easily be a slut and still be a Republican.  For that matter a woman can dress conservatively and still be a slut.  A woman can even go to church every Sunday showing off cleavage there and put out the night before.  (As you know I have met plenty of those types of chicks.)  No matter which way you look at it these chicks are in no way conservative.  Yet, these chicks think by going to church, voting for Mitt Romney (or pretending to do so), etc. makes them “conservative”.  Just because these chicks took on the outward appearance of being conservative (and they really didn’t even do that), they think that they can trick men into thinking they’re conservative.

My current girlfriend, Leila, has brought this to a new level.  She has tried to pull this “being a conservative con”, but the dimension she adds is that since her Persian ancestors were from a conservative culture she must be conservative by association.  Simply put, Leila is trying to convince me that she’s conservative because she’s “ethnic”.  Leila doesn’t dress conservatively, doesn’t lead a religious lifestyle, puts out immediately, and all around doesn’t lead a conservative lifestyle.  (I have also met her parents who aren’t conservative either.)  Yet, she expects me to believe she’s conservative only because she’s Persian.  On top of this Leila is from Los Angeles and more than anything else is a creature of L.A.

It doesn’t matter what a chick’s ethnic heritage is, where she goes Sunday morning, etc.  Chances are she is in no way conservative.

Mar 062013
 

On Jezebel, noted mangina, Hugo Schwyzer, is promoting pegging, which is a sexual act where a woman wearing a strap on fucks a man up his ass.  Hugo Schwyzer considers this a great way to turn men feminist.  The commenters on that piece mostly agree and apparently engage in pegging quite regularly.  Do hetero people really want to engage in pegging?  Obviously the answer is no except for ideological (i.e. feminist) reasons.  It would not be an enjoyable act for either a hetero man or a hetero woman.  Unless your girlfriend or boyfriend is questioning his/her sexuality or considers himself/herself a feminist, then you are never going to get a request to engage in pegging.

Since most women have no interest in pegging men, then what is the problem?  The problem is similar to the Susan Walsh line of, “I’m not a feminist because I’m against sluts/have no interest in being a slut.”  The average woman is going to look at feminists talking about pegging and think their nuts.  This sounds like a good thing except that it give the average woman cover for her own misandry because clearly she “can’t be a feminist” because she isn’t interested in unusual sex acts like pegging.  The average “not a feminist” woman will still be a misandrist and do things like use the feminist anti-family court system to divorce her husband all the while considering herself different from the feminists in the same way that Susan Walsh thinks that she is “not a feminist”.

What is happening with feminists and pegging is that what gets called “feminist” becomes a smaller and smaller subset of true misandry as feminism requires more and more obscure ideas and practices for someone to consider themselves a feminist.  This creates a problem where it becomes easier for women and manginas can be both “anti-feminist” (although they would be AFINOs, anti-feminist in name only) and misandrist at the same time.

Jan 092013
 

One of my most popular posts is “It’s No Surprise That Young Men Are Getting Fed Up With Women Faster Than Any Other Group Of Men” about how men under 30 are getting fed up with women.  It continues to be linked to and generate hits for this blog even though it was written close to a year ago.  It also continues to get new comments, but recently a woman named Cynthia commented on that post in a bizarre attempt to redefine the term, “slut”:

You should also realize, that I would not call these girls sluts, I mean they only sleep with attractive guys, not any guy.

This is quite possibly the most bizarre way to get out of being called a slut that I have ever seen.  And Cynthia is a conservative, too, once again showing that conservatives are obsessed with making the world “safe” for sluts. Nothing Cynthia tries will work because the term, slut, is impervious to being redefined since men will use the word, “slut” as we wish.  Even if you don’t have sex with unattractive guys, you’re still a slut, women, and nothing will change that.

Nov 292012
 

Last year, I wrote about a new show on the Discovery Fit & Health channel called Secretly Pregnant Sluts.  (The title is actually Secretly Pregnant, but as we know “Secretly Pregnant Sluts” is the correct title.)  Watching this show was extremely painful for me so all of you reading this better appreciate this post.  Despite being on the Discovery Fit & Health network, this show did not have a positive effect on my (or anyone else’s) fitness and health.

The secretly pregnant sluts were similar to last seasons sluts.  Just like last year, there was an ugly 40 year old cougar slut.  This one got knocked up by her 25 year old husband that’s unemployed, doesn’t do much of anything, and has lots of trouble with the law.  There were some married sluts who were having lots of kids.  One was 40 and having her ninth kid with her third husband bringing a new dimension to the “vagina is a clown car” concept.  This slut’s oldest daughter was pregnant at the same time.  Another married slut was having a sixth kid just because her first five kids were all boys, and she wanted a girl.  She had been pregnant so many times that her doctor strongly recommended she not get pregnant again since it would be dangerous for her health.  She put her desire for a girl above her own health and family.  There was also a married slut who was having employment trouble along with her husband.  They had three kids, and the third kid was special needs.  Despite the needs of the special needs kid, this slut decided she wanted more kids.

The rest of the sluts (and many of the sluts I already talked about) were repeat sluts.  They kept making the same mistakes over and over again.  For example, one slut got pregnant early in college and rather than learn her lesson got pregnant again just a couple years later.  There were many variations of that theme.  One of the repeat sluts stood out.  She had a 15 year old son and a 16 year old son with one man who wasn’t around, and later got involved with another man who knocked her up.  She had the baby, and this guy wasn’t around and didn’t do anything.  What does this slut do?  She gets knocked up by him again leading to her fourth kid.  Because neither of the men who knocked her up were around the 15 and 16 year old sons ended up being de facto fathers for the two younger kids.  You can tell that the 15 and 16 year old sons are going to become the biggest misogynists ever thanks to the behavior of their mom and how she uses them.

There was another slut who got knocked up, broke up with the guy who knocked her up, but got back together with him.  While they were broken up this guy (who is unemployed of course) knocked up another girl.  There was also still lives at home slut, a slut who at 31 still lives at home.  She got knocked up by her boyfriend/fiancé, but she hadn’t matured beyond 12.

If you ever wondered what Idiocracy would look like in real life, this show is it.  In fact, there was a part that was a lot like the intro to Idiocracy where where one of the idiots gets his dick impaled by an iron gate but with an important difference.  The guy who knocked up the slut with the 2 sons you know will become misogynists was in a car accident and got his legs crushed.  While he was able to walk after the accident, he would never have sex again.  Unlike in Idiocracy, this guy won’t be knocking up the slut with the soon to be misogynist sons again.

Oct 292012
 

I was watching The Soup’s special on rednecks.   They had an clip of a slut pulling down her pants to show the tattoo that she had on her butt.  The tattoo said “slut butt” with each word on a separate butt cheek.  (Here is a pic of it, but you might want to treat that link as NSFW.)  When asked why she got a slut butt tattoo, she said, “Because it was free.”  The clip ended there with the host of The Soup saying, “On the contrary, you will be paying for it for the rest of your life.”

That is an interesting metaphor for being a slut.  Even if a slut tries to reform, the mark of being a slut like a slut butt tattoo remains forever.  Being a slut may be “free” at the beginning, but she will be paying for it for the rest of her life.

I’m not surprised the slut butt tattoo was free.  It makes sense to give away that tattoo for free as a public service for the rest of us to identify sluts easily.  It’s too bad we can’t get all sluts to get a slut butt tattoo.

Oct 242012
 

Last Friday was the season finale of Boss which I talked about last month.  The Illinois state treasurer who had been caught cheating on his wife was down and out when I had written that post.  His wife who previously didn’t care that he was nailing other women was beginning the process of divorcing him.  Several things happened to change the state treasurer’s fortunes.  His opponent was exposed as a lesbian and her girlfriend was murdered by the mayor.  She decided to suspend her campaign which pretty much delivered the governorship to the state treasurer on a silver platter.  As a result, the state treasurer’s wife decides to come crawling back to him.  They have a conversation that makes her motives very clear.  She asks him if he still has plans for higher office because if he still wanted to be president (which he did) he would need to be married.  She pointed out how there hasn’t been an unmarried president since Buchanan.  For that reason, he takes her back.

While she was humiliated by having her husband’s infidelities exposed, the real reason she left him was because it appeared that he was going nowhere.  Once that was clearly not the case she wanted back.  This is a very realistic depiction of hypergamy in action.  When her husband is falling apart, she leaves because his status was lower than dirt.  When that changed and he’s moving up in the world, everything he did doesn’t matter, and she wants to get back together with him.

While it seems like the state treasurer’s wife might be unusual, she isn’t.  All women are hypergamous.  The only difference here is that when her husband is about to become governor of an entire state, his status is incredibly high so her hypergamy is a bit exaggerated.  However, it’s the same for all women.  AWALT.

Sep 222012
 

Last year the Starz network, a premium cable channel in the US, started a new TV series called Boss.  It’s stars Kelsey Grammer of Cheers and Fraiser as Tom Kane, a ruthless mayor of Chicago who is trying to hold on to power as he suffers from a neurological disease.  The corrupt Chicago political machine features heavily in this show.

If you have wondered about the type of women that have no problem with their men screwing other women, this show provides an interesting case study.   While it is fiction, the hypergamous instinct of the women who are fine with their men banging other women is depicted well.  These women are married to powerful high level city and state politicians.

There are some excellent examples of how the women in Boss don’t care that their men are banging other women.  The mayor’s wife finds out about the neurologist that the mayor has been seeing so she asks the mayor about it.  She doesn’t about the mayor’s neurological disease yet.  The mayor doesn’t want to tell her so he says, “Since when do you care where I stick it?”  That’s the end of that (until she finds out about her husband’s disease) because she really doesn’t care that he bangs other women.  In fact, the mayor has been banging other women long enough that it looks like he has an illegitimate son who is now in his 20s.  Being the mayor of Chicago, everyone knows he is married so all of these women that he has banged know he is married.  None of the women involved whether it’s his wife or the other women care.

There’s another character, the (Illinois) state treasurer, who is running for governor who is really getting around with other women.  He is married, but has banged plenty of other women from a black Alderman’s (member of the Chicago city council) wife to getting a blow job from an overweight campaign staffer (similar to Monica Lewinsky).  Since he is a major state level public figure, all the women involved know that he’s married.  He still bangs his wife too.  We even see him bang his wife in his campaign office.  This man was part of a plot to have him drop out of the governor’s race so that he could unseat the mayor.  The mayor figures this out and has a private investigator follow the state treasurer to get some photos of him banging another woman.  The photos are of him banging the black Alderman’s wife.  The photos get sent to the black Alderman and the state treasurer’s wife.  The wife was angry at her husband when she saw those photos but not because he cheated on her.  She explicitly said that she doesn’t care if he bangs other women.  She was angry because he mismanaged the politics of this situation and potentially could endanger his future political career.

Several episodes later these photos get released to the press.  She gets very angry with her husband and tells him to not come home.  She also refuses to do a “mea culpa” press conference with him.  Why is this since we know she doesn’t care if her husband has sex with other women?  There were two things going on.  First is the embarrassment and humiliation.  She doesn’t care if her husband screws other women, but she does care that the image she projects of being the perfect wife and mother gets ruined.  Second is that their two sons now know what their dad is doing since the entire world knows.  She explicitly says that she doesn’t want to communicate to her sons that a good wife just stands by while her husband screws other women (even though that is what she is doing).

Here is the lesson from Boss.  If you want to screw other women and not have your wife/girlfriend care, you need to be rich and/or powerful or appear so or otherwise have their hypergamous instinct directed towards you.  You also need to keep your activities from being public because while she might not care what you do, she will care if you embarrass and humiliate her.  (“Public” in this case can mean things like her family finding out since unless you are a public figure, a newspaper isn’t going to care who you bang.)  She will care if you wreck the image she is trying to project.  If you are married with kids, she will care if the kids find out what you are doing.  That is the difference between the mayor and the state treasurer.  The mayor can do what he wants without his wife caring because he keeps it out of the public eye.  The state treasurer failed to do that.

Sep 062012
 

It’s time to talk about filthy sluts again.  A recurring theme with filthy sluts is that the piss and take dumps everywhere but a toilet.  There have been plenty of examples from Snooki of MTV’s Jersey Shore pissing outside like a pet to college chicks taking dumps in showers.  The latest example of a filthy slut come from the Bad Girls Club Mexico.  Follow this link to watch a clip from that show.  In that clip one of the bad girls really has to piss.  She’s in a limo with the other bad girls so she finds a bucket, pulls down her skirt, and pisses into the bucket.  Later, when she exits the limo, she gives the piss filled bucket to some guy to deal with.

That last part is a very apt metaphor for how men have to clean up after women.  Whether its men building plumbing systems to efficiently deal with waste, or having to deal with a bucket of women’s piss, it’s all the same.

However, that is beside the point.  Here we have another example of how a toilet is becoming a completely foreign object to women.  Eventually, women will have no idea what a toilet is.  We’re going to need litter boxes for women in the future.  Women litter will be next to kitty litter in the grocery store.  This is the result of feminists saying that potty training oppresses women.

Aug 092012
 

I didn’t think I would be mentioning Susan Walsh again, but Anonymous Reader had a good comment on why she gets angry at the androsphere:

This is what the HUSsies are all about – clinging to their “right” to ride the carousel, or a carousel-lite version of “only” 5 dicks prior to “settling”. This is why SW gets so worked up and angry at the androsphere – her Beta didn’t mind that she’d ridden the carousel-lite, so how dare younger Betas become choosy, just because they weren’t among the 5 (or 10, or 15…) ponies ridden. How dare men decide they get to be gatekeepers of commitment! The idea!

In aviation there is the concept of being “behind the curve”, i.e. trying to fly the aircraft as it was a few minutes or seconds ago vs. how it is. Falling behind the curve can lead to a stall-spin, at low altitude that breaks your airplane. The 2nd stage feminists are way behind the curve, because they never conceived that men would react to their actions, ever, and can’t come to grips with the fact that we have reacted, and we continue to react.

If you know this, then you won’t be surprised by Susan Walsh doing things like deleting posts that mention various androsphere individuals and the rest of her behavior.

Mar 152012
 

When I wrote my post about filthy sluts, I thought it would be more of a future prediction of where women are heading.  Instead, I got a lot of stories about how widespread the filthy slut phenomena currently is.  Slagmire’s comment is a good example:

I became friends with one of my university janitors recently. We shoot the shit early in the morning while I’m doing a little studying in my dorm lounge before class, so he tells me all kinds of crazy stories that the janitors share between each other when they all clock in before work.

He said a hefty chunk of the female janitorial staff is on the verge of quitting because the girls have taken to shitting in the showers when they’re drunk/hung-over, and it’s not just isolated incidents either. It’s gotten so bad that they’re pressuring the university to address the issue directly, and this is a “progressive” West Coast school too, so there you go.

Odd that the stereotype of the ogre man and the neurotically cleanly housewife is completely reversed for young men in their twenties like me.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to take my girlfriend outside before she poos on the rug again.

That last sentence had me ROTFLMAO.

Even being drunk, what makes a woman think that taking a dump in a shower is a good idea?  I think this is the end result of feminism.  We have women effectively thinking and acting as if they’re exempt from basic hygiene for being women.  Feminists attack basic health facts like being overweight or worse yet obese is bad for your health and claim that being thin is a patriarchal system of oppression.  Soon we will see feminists talking about how basic hygiene and using toilets for urination and taking dumps is part of a patriarchal system of oppression that keeps women down.  In other words, feminists will be saying that women are oppressed by potty training.

Feb 102012
 

Sluts over time increase their slutiness.  Eventually there gets to a point where a slut has reached maximum slutiness.  Or is there?  Is that point just an inflection point to a new frontier of slutiness?  I think the answer is that there is a new frontier of slutiness coming, and that frontier is being filthy.  I don’t being filthy in a good way as in sexual filthiness.  I mean literal filthiness as in sluts who don’t regularly wash themselves.

I came to this conclusion last night when I was watching Jersey Shore on MTV.  I was watching both last week’s episode (which I didn’t get a chance to watch last week) and this week’s episode.  Last week’s episode featured Snooki being very filthy.  (Beyond everything else I’m going to talk about, this episode is very entertaining because it has Deena and Sammi trying to figure out electricity unsuccessfully, and the Situation having his fly unzipped and dick sticking out for a long time without him realizing it.)  It starts out with Snooki pissing on in her pants in a club.  Does Snooki go home and and take a shower?  Of course not.  She takes what she calls a “shore shower” and just sprays herself with a lot of perfume.  Snooki doesn’t even remove her piss soaked panties until the next morning.

It turns out that Snooki has a urinary tract infection.  She says it’s because of all the sex she’s having, yet most people have sex without ever having a UTI.  Clearly, it has to do with her lack of hygiene.

Later in the episode she has to piss, but all the bathrooms in the house are occupied.  So what does Snooki do?  She pisses outside, and those of us who watched the episode get to see her piss outside.  One of the other roommates says, “She drinks out of bowls and pisses outside.  We don’t need pets.”

If you read any message board about Jersey Shore like board at Television Without Pity, one thing that comes up from time to time is the lack of hygiene of the Jersey Shore cast.  This isn’t atypical for them.

I’m convinced being filthy is the next frontier of slutiness.  Increasing slutiness is basically increasing bad behavior by women that they expect men to accept.  A failure to adhere to standards of basic hygiene would be consistent with this.

In the future, this is going to be something I’m going to have to watch with my women.  I naturally assumed that any woman I get now or in the future would know how to wash themselves since they are presumably functioning adults.  This is no longer an assumption I can make.  As soon as this starts being a problem, I’m heading back to being celibate.  I’m not a cleanliness freak by a long shot, but this is seriously disgusting, and I don’t want to know what organisms are growing on these filthy sluts.  I knew there would get to a point where I would be heading back to celibacy, but I didn’t think it would have to do with women having a lack of hygiene.

This will add another reason for guys to use alternatives to women such as porn now and VR sex in the future.  All of those “virtual women” know how to wash themselves.  If things are going the way of women getting increasingly filthy, then it’s another reason that virtual women will be superior to real women.

Jan 142012
 

Carbon 14 emailed me a few days ago and asked me why I hadn’t commented on something on Susan Walsh’s blog from several months ago that referenced me.  I haven’t read her blog for a long time except for cases like last month’s debacle where her real attitudes got revealed.  That is the reason why.  Regardless I wish I had known about this sooner because it’s another example showing just how nuts Susan Walsh has become.  (In all of the following blockquotes, I’m also including screenshots of the comments being quoted in case Susan Walsh goes on a deleting spree when this gets posted.)

Several months ago someone using the name of David Jones wrote this comment on HookingUpSmart:  (Screenshot here)

@runningman

I owe you an apology. I thought you were one of the over 30 male virgins. The so called “mens rights” movement is filled with agents of the elite promoting gender war for the purposes of depopulation. I have it on good authority that over 30 virgin males are the primary group recruited by the elite for that purpose.

Clearly, you are not a part of that, and I see that now. I misinterpreted your email, and I’m sorry.

@Susan

With more info about runningman, I see that he’s nothing like Mr. White & Nerdy. I owed him an apology, and I made that apology.

With that said, the so called “mens rights” movement was manufactured by the elite just as feminism was. Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA, and there are agents of the elite in the mens rights movement too. Both sides of the gender war are funded by the elite just as the funded both sides of various wars in history. Virgin males over 30 make excellent recruiting targets for the elite especially the angrier ones. Mr. White & Nerdy is a good example, but he is not the only one. It’s a safe bet Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech also works for the elite because he is deeply embedded in the military-industrial-security state complex. He was an over 30 virgin. Supposedly he isn’t anymore, but it doesn’t matter if he is or isn’t a virgin now.

 

If you can’t get laid, the Illuminati want to recruit you to rule the world.  It makes more sense than a lot of things I have heard in conspiracy theory.

By itself, none of this is particularly notable now.  We have heard the bit about how I work for the Illuminati and that the MRM is some sort of Illuminati program many times before.  We have even heard variations on the “virgin/sexless recruitment” idea before.  Many conspiracy theorists are afraid of transhumanism so that isn’t new either.

Knowing all that, why am I writing a post on this?  Why is someone writing a crazy comment on Susan Walsh’s blog relevant to Susan Walsh?  Many of you are asking that because you automatically assume that Susan Walsh had a normal reaction to such lunacy and regarded it as garbage.  It seems like a reasonable assumption but you are wrong:  (Screenshot here)

@David Jones
That’s a pretty compelling story you’re telling there. W&N and PMAFT have both been very difficult in these comment threads.

Yes, Susan Walsh called a crazy story about the “elite” recruiting sexless men, COMPELLING.  If Susan Walsh chooses to address this, I’m sure she will pull the same tricks she did last month when she said that divorce is overblown in the manosphere.  The fact is that she has no excuse.  If you read the entire page of comments, multiple people recognize David Jones comments as lunacy.  Susan Walsh has no excuse not to recognize this for what it is.  So why did Susan Walsh call a conspiracy theory about me, compelling?  Susan Walsh is in the business of whitewashing sluts or slut rehab.  The problem with “slut rehab” is that more and more men are realizing the truth about pervasive misandry and how that applies to sluts.  The idea of the “former slut” will not gain traction with increasing numbers of men.  If growing numbers of men are taking the position of “once a slut, always a slut”, then what are you left with if you want to rehab sluts?  Besides man up 2.0, the only thing left is to claim that women were “brainwashed” into being sluts.  In other words, being a slut wasn’t their choice but sort of forced upon them so any man refusing to have anything to do with supposedly “former” sluts is just beating up on the “victims” of brainwashing.  The only way to do that is with an absurd conspiracy theory like the one David Jones gave her.

If Susan Walsh thinks all of this is compelling, she probably thinks I’m a reptile alien too.

Lastly, I’m going to include part of David Jones last comment:  (Screenshot here)

The so called “mens rights” movement come into this because it’s the “mirror image of feminism” for men. It’s the male side of the elite’s manufactured gender war. If there’s one thing the “mens rights” males agree on its not getting married. That means less children. Within “mens rights” the MGTOW movement is even more extreme. They promote ghosting for men which involves avoiding women entirely. The more MGTOWs, the less children.

As Gloria Steinem and others worked for the elite in feminism, there are agents of the elite in the “mens rights” movement. Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech is deeply embedded in the military-industrial-security state complex. He has admitted this on his blog. That sounds like how Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA. He is acting under orders from his elite masters to grow the “mens rights” movement and promote gender war.

If you want to promote gender war from the male side, who would be the best group to recruit? Angry male virgins who can’t get together with women. Those males are already predisposed to work for the elite’s manufactured gender war. This is where overgrown boys like White & Nerdy come in. (Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech may have also been recruited this way. Being in the military-industrial-security state complex he probably knows more of the elite’s plans.) I know of other examples of this. A friend of mine has a brother similar to White & Nerdy. A year ago my friend’s brother started acting and talking like a “mens rights” hard liner that would be at home at the spearhead. My friend’s brother also suddenly got a lot more money at around the same time, and my friend can’t explain how that happened.

The reason why White & Nerdy and Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech have been so hard line is because a blog like yours, Susan, that promotes good relationships between men and women is a threat to the elite’s plans. The “mens rights” movement is still small so your blog can have a real effect, Susan.

Notice I did not talk about lizard people, Illuminati, Freemasons, Bohemian Grove, the occult despite the jokes of a few people here. Such things are distractions to what is really going on. Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech makes jokes like that all the time to distract from what he is really doing. Such fantasy is not a part of anything that I said.

Yes, I make jokes about reptile aliens and other things.  When it comes to someone like David Jones, I’m doing him a favor.  Conspiracy theories involving reptile aliens and demonic powers are less crazy than a conspiracy theory that male virgins are getting recruited by the elite.

Update: AmStrat wanted to remind everyone about the research that shows that conspiracy theorists are more willing than the general population to join a conspiracy.  This means that Susan Walsh accusing me of being part of a conspiracy says a lot more about her and her morality than it does about me.

Jan 062012
 

Over the holidays I took time off to visit family.  At one point I had nothing to do, and I wasn’t interested in reading the internet through my smartphone anymore so I looked for something to watch on TV.  This is something I don’t usually do as I usually have other things to do.  My TV watching is much more directed towards specific things.  I went through the cable’s On Demand service and found this show called Secretly Pregnant Sluts.  (The actual title is Secretly Pregnant, but Secretly Pregnant Sluts describes the show more accurately.)  It’s on the Discovery Fit & Health channel which is one of the 90% of channels on cable that I never watch because it’s entertainment for women 24/7.  I would assume that a channel called “Fit & Health” would promote fitness and health.  Secretly Pregnant Sluts did neither.

Here are a few of the sluts that were featured on this show:

  1. Bikini Model Slut.  Bikini model slut actually lives in the DC area.  She was keeping her pregnancy a secret because she’s worried that she will lose modeling jobs.  She didn’t even look like a bikini model.  They show her hanging out with her model friends one time and the difference between her and the rest of the models who look like models was striking.  She was a single mother too, but when she got pregnant, she married her boyfriend.  Her kids were from her first marriage, and bikini model slut admitted on camera that her first marriage was just so she could get having kids out of the way and was not for love.  It wasn’t said on camera, but I’m sure she also likes the chilimony check she’s getting.
  2. Ugly Obese Slut.  Ugly obese slut was married during part of the filming.  She was unemployed along with her husband and living with her mom.  She already had one kid she can’t provide for financially.  Eventually, she kicks her husband out.  Before that her husband says on camera says that he has been on job interviews and even gotten job offers, but the jobs “weren’t what he was looking for”.  (I guess he was waiting for a management position.)  Unemployment was a common problem among all the sluts and their husbands and boyfriends.
  3. Ugly Cougar Slut.  Ugly cougar slut was 40 years old and a single mother with a few kids.  She was at a bar and met a 19 year old guy.  They banged, but thought it would be a one night stand until they ended up pregnant.  They decided to try to have a “relationship”, but it was fraught with problems.  The 19 year old guy was unemployed and didn’t have a lot going on upstairs.  (I suspect a scan of his brain would find a large hole where a brain is supposed to be.)  Ugly cougar slut got her man a job at her office.  Eventually, this goes south, and he ends up in jail.  Eventually, ugly cougar slut’s office figures out that the guy she got a job there was her boyfriend so she ends up humiliated at her office due to everything that happened.
  4. College Slut.  There isn’t a lot to say about her that isn’t similar to the other sluts except that she gets knocked up at 19 by her boyfriend.   He is neither in college nor employed.
  5. Ugly Obese Repeat Slut.  Ugly obese repeat slut is also ugly and obese like ugly obese slut.  This slut already had been knocked up in college and was a single mother with one kid.  Now, she’s in her 20s and gets knocked up again.  Her boyfriend spent two years in jail.  She also has “employment difficulties”.
  6. Mistress Slut.  Mistress slut had an affair with a married man.  She gets knocked up by the married guy, but the married guy decides to stay with his wife.  She goes back to the married guy and gets knocked up by him AGAIN.  (Filming takes place during the pregnancy of her second kid.)  She lives in New York City and gets told by her family in Florida to move down to Florida because it’s cheaper.  While mistress slut has a job, NYC is expensive especially with two kids.  However, mistress slut doesn’t want to give up her pseudo sex and the city lifestyle.
  7. Raised By Her Daughter Slut.  This slut was 42 years old and got knocked up by her boyfriend.  She didn’t think she could get pregnant at her age so she wasn’t careful.  She was a single mom with two daughters.  Her oldest daughter who was 22 was obviously the adult in their relationship.  The younger, 17 year old, daughter went to live with the 22 year old because the slut couldn’t take care of her.  This slut spent most of her time worrying about what her 22 year old was going to think of her being pregnant.  The slut’s daughter realizes that the slut’s boyfriend is useless so that feeds into the slut’s freaking out.  She kept saying things like. “If my daughter wants me to give up the baby for adoption, I will do it.”  In terms of freaking out she was worse than all of the other sluts on this show.  She was also unemployed as was her boyfriend.  Her boyfriend didn’t see a problem with this state because he kept saying, “God will provide for us.”

There were other sluts featured in this show, but at this point they’re just like the sluts I listed.  Unemployment, financial, and legal (i.e. jail) problems were commonplace among either the sluts or their men.  Since I don’t want that much TV and ignore most of the channels on my FIOS system (as they are pure female entertainment 24/7), I didn’t realize how bad most of TV has become.  I knew it was bad, but not this bad.  This show is designed to tap straight into the female psyche and rationalization hamster.  The drama could be considered to be manufactured as the sluts are responsible for their situations.  The website for the show even has ideas for its female viewership to manufacture drama with pages like, “5 Reasons to Keep Your Pregnancy a Secret“, “Hiding the Baby Bump“, and “Is He Ready to Be a Dad?”  This show not only features female manufactured drama, but it also shows women new ways to manufacture drama in their own lives.

Dec 012011
 

The votes are in for the October 2011 Entitlement Princess Of The Month.  With 57% of the vote, Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi beat out Victoria Liss for the October 2011 Entitlement Princess of the Month.

Remember to submit new entitlement princesses for next month’s voting, at this link.  Without you submitting entitlement princesses, this contest can not continue.

This month we only have one entitlement princess submitted by Anonymous, Kim Kardashian.  Without any other submissions Kim Kardashian wins by default (so no voting this month), but even if there we’re other submissions, I would have held on to those for next month since Kim Kardashian clearly deserves to be this month’s entitlement princess.  Her entire life has been one of being a entitlement princess, but what caused her to get this month’s entitlement princess award was divorcing her husband, Kris Humphries, after being married to him for only 72 days as soon as she made $17 million off getting married to Humphries.  One of the Kardashian reality shows will be edited to make Humphries look like a villan.

On top of this, Kim Kardashian has said that she hopes everyone respects her “courage” for her acts of entitlement princessery.  If there is ever a lifetime achievement entitlement princess award, she is guaranteed to get it.

Nov 192011
 

Over at the Rational Male blog, Rollo Tomassi introduced the concept of “Man Up 2.0”:

I’m glad to see it getting the publicity, but ONLY a woman could write this without suffering fem-screech backlash accusations of misogyny. This is the environment we’re in today. I have no doubt that Ms. Charen will receive her share of frothing hate from ego invested Jezebels, but at least her critique will register for them. No man could write this critique and be taken seriously, and therein lies the danger in women co-opting the message the manosphere has been compiling for 12 years now. The environment is such that anything remotely critical a man might offer is instantly suspect of misogyny or personal (‘he’s bitter”) bias, however, couch that message in a female perspective, play Mrs. Doubtfire, and you’ll at least reach the audience beginning with something like validity.

Not surprisingly this element of message delivery is lost on most women. Adopting the male perspective seems novel, something that might set a woman apart in a sea of common fem-speak, but it’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of female bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.

A major illustration of this can be found in the ‘late-to-the-party’ resurgence of masculine ideals in mainstream evangelical christianity today. Like so much else in christian culture, they’re happy to use the popularity of a secular phenomenon and repackage it as kosher, the manosphere is no exception. Hacks like Mark Driscoll and more than few other “relevant” new order evangelical pastors have co-opted manosphere (MRA?) fundamentals – even ‘purified’ forms of Game – as their particular cause du jour for returning men back into their roles of accountability to the female imperative. This of course has an overwhelming appeal to White Knight prone guys, but the push is disingenuous for the same reason ‘pro-men’ female writers are – they still use the girl-world, female imperative rule book to define their outlook.

This is a real danger that I’m glad we’re starting to talk about.  There’s a real danger of game being “sanitized” for the benefit of women or “made safe” for women.  This form of game is game 2.0, a parallel of marriage 2.0, and it feeds into the form of promiscuity that women prefer allowing women to be sluts exclusively on their terms and is all around detrimental to men.

Socons/Tradcons love man up 2.0 and game 2.0.  It fits into their blather about “male leadership” that is really only about having a ready made scapegoat when a woman needs it.  A good example of this is Escoffier who recently at Dalrock’s blog declared that Athol Kay was the only good gamer out there.  He didn’t include other married gamers.  He only included Athol.  Even most married gamers are not pro-female enough for him.

Many of you are thinking, “Doesn’t this apply to someone like Susan Walsh too?”.  You aren’t the first to think that:

This can also be seen with Susan, as she is an erstwhile proponent of Game, but tends to mesh in a variety of conditions, qualifications and other caveats. Sometimes I read her stuff and just cringe at how even a professed anti-feminist still writes from the Team Woman perspective.

The threat of man up 2.0 and game 2.0 can not be underestimated, and until Rollo wrote his post, we weren’t dealing with it.  One reason I think that we had the disaster that was the Elam-Frost debate (something I wasn’t going to address originally, but with this I have changed my mind so I will be writing a post on it on Monday) was this.  Just because someone uses game language (or Roissy style game language) does not automatically make them pro-male in any way.

 

 

 

Nov 102011
 

Last night Molly, the born again virgin, came over to my place, begging and pleading beyond anything she said the last time to be fucked.  She didn’t even call first unless you count her phone call to me from her cell phone so that I would let her into my condo building.

This was the time, but I had to let her know first about my two other women.  She was like, “Seriously?”  I was like, “Yeah”.  Molly’s response to that was that she didn’t care.  So I gave Molly a good hard fucking.  She was very religious when we were having sex.  She said, “Oh God” a lot.  When we were finished, Molly just said, “Thank you” and fell asleep.

There you have it.  This is what a born again virgin from a church is like.

Jun 132011
 

I found this at Oz Conservative which got me thinking:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: for every provocative “slut” there must be a “manimal” with so little control over himself that he rapes.

For socons and tradcons this doesn’t just apply to sluts and rapists.  Socons and tradcons assume that when a woman sins sexually (to what socons and tradcons consider sexual sin), a man must also sin sexually, homosexuality notwithstanding.  While this is technically correct, they take this to also mean that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between female sexual sin and male sexual sin in terms of the numbers of women and men committing such sins.  While heterosexual sexual sins require a man and a woman this doesn’t mean that sexual sin is distributed equally among men or women.  Getting back to the quote above, it’s clearly absurd to say that there is a rapist for every slut out there.  In reality, there are many sluts per rapist.

The same principle applies to (what socons and tradcons consider) sexual sin in general.  Those of us who understand hypergamy know that sex is not evenly distributed among men.  We know that approximately 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women.  That means many men are going without or getting very little sex and thus committing no or little sexual sin.  On the other hand sexual sin among women is more evenly distributed.

Often you will hear socons and tradcons say that they’re against some form of sexual sin such as premarital sex equally in men and women.  Since 80% of men aren’t committing that sin at anywhere near the same rate women or alphas (the top 20% of men) are, what socons and tradcons are doing is white knighting for women (and in a way alpha males).  If socons and tradcons are going to attack (what they believe is) a sin, then they need to attack where it is happening.  By being against a sin “equally” in both men and women assumes that said sin is being committed equally by men and women and equally among men.  As we know this isn’t the case.

As bad as this is, what socons and tradcons are doing is even worse.  With their “men are supposed to lead so anything a woman does wrong is a failure of male leadership” nonsense, socons and tradcons either partially or fully excuse the sexual sin women commit because it’s the fault of some man.  Also, who is likely to be in a church on a Sunday?  The alphas, the 20% of men who are getting most of the sex, won’t be there.  The men who are in church will be from the other 80%.  Since sex among women is more evenly distributed, that means the women in church are likely to have committed sexual sin.  In other words, socons and tradcons are going after the wrong group in their churches when it comes to sexual sin.  It’s just another example of how churches are become feminized and another reason why men want less and less to do with the church.  Why would a man want to go to a place where he got blamed for something he didn’t do?

On top of this socons and tradcons will white knight for women who have sexually sinned a lot in the churches by trying to shame men into marrying them.  These white knights delude themselves into thinking their female coreligionists are innocent and sexually inexperienced when the opposite is true.  The men who decide to have nothing to do with the churches know better.  They know that churches have universally become anti-male and vehicles for white knighting.  They know that the women in the churches are just as bad as those outside of the church and that the churches will do nothing about female sexual sin except blame men.

Apr 172011
 

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

We are told NAWALT (not all women are like that) over and over again.  Naturally, the question comes up on whether all women are like that or not or if a particular woman is like that or not.  The answer can be more complicated than being either/or.  There are many cases where a particular woman may truly not be like that but pretends to be, acts likes a woman like that, or thinks like a woman like that out of some bizarre sense of female solidarity.  Here is an example (from a woman using the username “Doomed Harlot”):

I self-identify as a “slut” because I have always opposed the double-standard and the transactional view of sex, and have acted accordingly. On the one hand, I may not qualify under the standards set forth here.  I never had sex with, or even kissed, anyone other than a premarital boyfriend of several years and my husband.

For the sake of argument let’s assume that everything “Doomed Harlot” says about her sexual history is true.  She has only had sex with two men, one of which is her husband.  Yet, she calls herself a slut out of some bizarre desire to oppose supposed double standards and female solidarity.  Is “Doomed Harlot” a slut?  Is she like that?  Technically not but if she’s willing to talk like that, think like that, and identify like that what is the real meaningful difference between her and an actual slut?

The issue of female solidarity and NAWALT is limited to slutitude.  This applies to a lot of issues.  For instance a woman might never intend to divorce or have an abortion herself and find those acts in most or all cases to be immoral, but she will fight against any changes to the law on those subjects.  Even if she has no intention of having an abortion or starting a divorce, can she really be said to not be like a woman who does those things?

What has happened is that a lot of women who technically might not be like that have decided that female solidarity is more important than actually demonstrating that they aren’t like that.  What is the meaningful difference between a woman who is like that and a woman who isn’t but talks, thinks, and identifies as a woman like that out of a sense of female solidarity?  There really is none because either unintentionally or (most likely) intentionally, the woman who isn’t like that but acts like a woman like that is providing cover for the women like that.  A woman who truly isn’t like that would want to demonstrate the difference between her and women who are like that.

Going back to the “Doomed Harlot” example, if a woman talks like, thinks like, and identifies as a slut, how is a man supposed to know she isn’t actually a slut?  If she thinks she’s a slut then how can men know she really isn’t a slut?  If “Doomed Harlot” isn’t going to make an attempt to differentiate herself from actual sluts, why should men?

Unless a woman is willing to clearly demonstrate she is not like that, using NAWALT as an argument is hollow and hypocritical.  If a woman doesn’t think it’s important to clearly differentiate herself from women who are like that then men can not be at fault for thinking she is like that.

Translate »